Essentially it's the claim that being White affords one access to universal, institutional or systemic advantages, used by anti-Whites (who use the
code-word "anti-racist" to disguise their intentions) to justify overt racial discrimination against Whites, in the hopes of equalizing social and
economic outcomes between races, whose disparities are better explained by hereditary differences in intelligence and temperament.

You cannot measure it, and it has no specific concrete definition to provide a basis for proof of its existence, it has not, and can never be proven
to exist, but if you question it you're called "ignorant" (in reality you are a skeptic), and the fact that you questioned it in the first place is
used as further proof that you have "White privilege".

Dear Australian members, not being racist means tolerating others who are of a different race, many of you seem to have trouble with this concept.

There is a difference between racism (not liking others because of their race) and cultural supremacism (not liking others because of their
culture or way of life). All races are equal, but there are superior and inferior cultures around the world. I dont like some cultures, and dont
want them to immigrate here much, that does not make me a racist.

Let's use an example, I'll name my character 'Bob' and I'll place him in Denmark.. Bob is well alive in 2012, and lives in Denmark. Bob's ancestors
migrated to the land around 400 odd years ago.. According to what you said, Bob is an immigrant.

Let's use an example, I'll name my character 'Bob' and I'll place him in Denmark.. Bob is well alive in 2012, and lives in Denmark. Bob's
ancestors migrated to the land around 400 odd years ago.. According to what you said, Bob is an immigrant.

edit on 23-4-2012 by Nuker because:
(no reason given)

if Bob's people wiped out most of the population and moved the rest to ghettos and reservations, than yes, Bob would be the relative of some
genocidal invader, neither bob nor any of his predecessors have a right to be there.

if Bob then started complaining about legal immigration, it would make Bob into a total hypocrite

Essentially it's the claim that being White affords one access to universal, institutional or systemic advantages, used by anti-Whites (who use the
code-word "anti-racist" to disguise their intentions) to justify overt racial discrimination against Whites, in the hopes of equalizing social and
economic outcomes between races, whose disparities are better explained by hereditary differences in intelligence and temperament.

You cannot measure it, and it has no specific concrete definition to provide a basis for proof of its existence, it has not, and can never be proven
to exist, but if you question it you're called "ignorant" (in reality you are a skeptic), and the fact that you questioned it in the first place is
used as further proof that you have "White privilege".

if Bob then started complaining about legal immigration, it would make Bob into a total hypocrite

No, there would be absolutely nothing hypocritical about that. It would maybe be hypocritical from the ancestors that personally wiped out the
natives. Not from Bob, since he did not choose the parents or birthplace.

If anything, this argument furthers the point of those who are anti-immigration, because the cause of natives demise is precisely because they did
have very generous immigration policy (no borders at all).
Why should we repeat their mistake, and end up like them? Because collective guilt or some kind of twisted karma concept? I dont believe in collective
guilt.

You learn from mistakes of others, or you are doomed to repeat them. If western people wont learn from the mistakes of native americans and
aboriginals, they will share the same fate.

Why should we repeat their mistake, and end up like them? Because collective guilt or some kind of twisted karma concept? I dont believe in collective
guilt. You learn from mistakes of others, or you are doomed to repeat them. If western people wont learn from the mistakes of native americans and
aboriginals, they will share the same fate.

The interesting thing is the immigrants having money when it seems they shouldn't. I don't know anything about it at all but could they be keeping
promised rewards to certain groups.

Opposition says Syrian rebel fighters will get salaries..MIDDLE EAST 1 April 2012 Last updated at 10:01 erigazette.org...

In Oroville Ca many years ago around 1972 I think we suddenly had a bunch of Vietnamese move to town. The government had some arrangement with these
people and they all got lump sums of cash. One family bought a local gas station. They did not speak English and it was hard to even pay them
properly. The old Grandmother and wife would be sitting on the floor behind the counter and all the family were piled back there.

They learned about $ really fast and were the cheapest gas in town, but soon lost business because our fuel filters were ruined after buying gas there
a few times. Most of the people bought real estate someone must have been advising them. The town began to have the same problems you speak of from
the young I think they felt out of place and it was hard on them so they formed into gangs.

The police, if they don't know who has carried out a crime, try to figure out who benefits from it.

Who benefits from the West being weakened from the inside out from mass 3rd world immigration and political correctness?

Who has deep enough pockets to have made it happen?

Big business, Israel, China and Saudi Arabia would have a motive and enough money to make it happen.

But political correctness was apparent before China had enough money to influence the West. Israel would have enough money around the world but one
would have to wonder the motive unless they are thinking very long term.

I have to wonder if both big business (or at least the super rich) and Saudi money are behind 3rd world immigration and political correctness in the
West.

One thing is for sure. Political correctness didn't just happen. Nor did anyone ask for mass third world immigration. But we have them both.

I didnt read your post,sorry, but before you get to any conclusion about a conspiracy,keep this in mind:

Most underdeveloped,third world countries are not taking steps toward the right direction, some seem to be going back to the 1900's and the middle
ages. People with the will,and the means to leave their country,will do so, often towards more stable,civilized and developed countries. Think about
it,if Mexico didn't have all the corrup government,al the gang crimes,all the drug trafficking,America wouldn't have as many mexicans as they do.
Now apply that to the rest of the region.
Now apply it to Europe for example, and the mass immigration from african and arabian countries. People don't want to live on #ty conditions
anymore,so they go to more stable countries for a better chance. What they do after they get there is a subject for another discussion.

In my country,there are A LOT of italian,portuguese,chinese and spanish immigrants. People don't complain about them because they don't come to
create crime, they come and work,more so than the average venezuelan citizen.
that's why they own a lot of supermarket,bakeries,restaurants and informal commerce.

how are these immigrants being let into australia? im looking to emmigrate there and its only possible for me by the means of a sponsor, which i have.
but its kinda rediculous that they have incredibly strict laws about citizenship but just let thousands in.

Here is another very relevant report, this time by the UK House of Lords, no less.

They warn there is little to no benefit from high levels of immigration.

Limit immigration, warns House of Lords

The report concludes:

- There is little or no economic benefit to Britain from the present high level of immigration. The immigrants are not needed to fill labour shortages
or help fund the state pension for retiring Britons.

- Certain groups, including the low-paid, some ethnic minorities and young people seeking to get on the jobs ladder may suffer because of competition
from immigrants.

- Immigrants have an "important economic impact" on public services with some schools struggling to cope with the rapidly-rising number of children
who do not speak English as a first language.

It said the economic effect should be measured against the (positive) impact on the living standards of the existing population - which, it said, was
negligible.

The report says immigration has reached a scale "unprecedented in our history".

The Confederation of British Industry criticised the report and said that businesses needed the flexibility to recruit immigrants who formed a
valuable part of the workforce.

I see a pattern here, in that many European-based countries are being flooded with immigrants.

Once the immigrants get to their destination, they are not encouraged to assimilate. They are encouraged to act just as they did in their countries
of origin, and the governments push to keep them as foreign as possible by printing government information in their native languages, and pushing the
"cultural sensitivity" issue.

They are given lots of freebies (health care, welfare, housing) while the original population does not qualify for these perks.

One can see the set-up for cultural and racial clashes.

Who benefits from this? From what I can see, here in the United States, the wages are stagnant or have gone down because there are immigrants who
will work for much less. So big business benefits by higher prices for their products due to inflation, while paying less for employee labor.

What other benefit are there? By splintering and stratifying the population, it is easier to take away their rights and their ability to band
together and fight corruption.

It has nothing to do with racism. The point is, if you are going to immigrate to a new country with a new culture, you assimilate into that culture
and respect it. That is what my immigrant parents did, along with tens of thousands of immigrants in the past. This is no longer occurring, and it is
a difficult thing for a proud citizen to be overrun with new citizens who not only do not have to assimilate, don't want to assimilate, but they hate
you and make fun of you on top of it.

There is a method to this madness, a destructive agenda in which the population loses. What better way to destroy national sovereignty and national
pride, thereby assuring there will be no mass uprising against governmental corruption and theft of tax money, than by allowing unchecked immigration
of people from countries in which corruption in government is second nature?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.